Monday, July 14, 2008

News Alert: College Professor Request "Catholics" To Give Him The Most Blessed Sacrament So He Can Video Tape Desecrating It. Disgruntled Professor's Story Here" .

Shocking Story Prompts Priest To Call All Catholics To Action! His Advice May Surprise You. . .

Hello My Fellow Catholics,

Some of you may have heard the news through the Catholic League regarding the desecration of the Most Blessed Sacrament.

May I propose a course of action to all:

(1) Pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet for this misguided soul, a Minnesota professor, who so wishes to desecrate our Lord in His Greatest Gift in a public way in front of cameras and so on. We are called to pray for this man who desecrates our Lord in so public and so thumb-nosing an action.

- BUT -

(2) Pray a second Divine Mercy Chaplet for ourselves, when we by our sins, desecrate the Most Blessed Sacrament. After all, if Catholics, who quote unquote truly believe Christ is present in this Most Wondrous Gift, can desecrate that Gift by coming in front of Him dressed immodestly, if we can come before Him in this Wondrous Gift with petty rivalries, if we can come before Him in a state of sin from sexual misconduct, should we not ask for mercy our selves? What has this professor done that we have not done with our own actions?

Stop, Pray And Listen

People of God, I KNOW that there is a difference between what this professor is doing and what we do in our sin. And truly, we are called to take the gentle actions Christ would take to stop it. His desecration is shameful, and hurts us all. Still, this remains a moment to look at our own sins and how they wound that Gift, that Jesus who we profess to adore.

29 comments:

It is shocking advice and all around good advice. It is always appropriate for us to examine the logs in our own eye in addition however practical action should be taken to protect Our Lord. Interestingly I was discussing this with a group of Catholics and I think the urge to send him flowers ended up being the dominant desire. Figure that bit of grace out? :)

I recalled reading in a wonderful book titled 'The Blessed Sacrament' that a Catholic to receive Eucharist in a state of mortal sin is to bring Jesus into a heart that is under Satan's control. It would be far better for that consecrated Host to fall into the refuse on the street than to enter into a sinful heart.

Yes, what this professor has threatened to do to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament is a great travesty and an insult to all that is Holy and most central to our belief as faithful Catholics...however; thank you, Fr. Henderson, for pointing out that we, too, are capable of the same (if not worse) outrage if we approach the Table of the Lord stained with sin.

The fact that Jesus still comes willingly to us, as a sheep is silent before its shearers, even when we are indifferent and cold toward Him, shows His great love and mercy towards us.

I am praying for a Eucharistic miracle. If this professor wants to video tape and make public what he plans to do, let the unbelievers see and be converted - that this 'cracker' they deride is really and truly the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of their Creator and Savior.

Thank you, Father, for cooling my jets just a little. However, don't we as Catholics strive to live the virtuous life? Would we dare to approach our Lord in a state of mortal sin? Can we compare our actions with that of an satanic madman scientist? We grieve for a misguided congregation that allows any non-ordained lay person to distribute Him to the faithful, maybe even dressed in flip flops and shorts. We grieve for a misguided congregation that would dare to house our Lord in a glass tabernacle and relegate Him to some corner of the church. The list goes on and on. We judge for many reasons: to guide our children and families, to keep our legislation is on track, or to ensure the proper respect is given to our Lord. If we ourseleves dare not approach our Lord in a state of mortal sin, we are then judging those who do. Scandal and sacrilege have no place in His Temple. I believe we must rise and defend our Lord, for all the sacrileges and outrages by which He is offended.

As St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, He (Jesus) exists in His proper species, but not as He is in this sacrament; such as to be mocked, to be spat upon, to be crucified, to be scourged, and the rest. Hence some have composed this verse: "Our Lord can grieve beneath the sacramental veils But cannot feel the piercing of the thorns and nails."

"If we ourselves dare not approach our Lord in a state of mortal sin, we are then judging those who do."

I believe good Catholics take Paul's exhortation seriously when he says "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself." (1Cor.11:29)If we ourselves would never dare approach the Blessed Sacrament in a state of mortal sin or with other forms of disrepect, then we are concerning ourselves with those who do. That is the judgement that should be left to God alone.

Perhaps the good Father is addressing his homily to cafeteria catholics who take the Sacraments and attendance at Mass less than seriously. But by soft selling this outrage, he short changes his congregation, and ultimately his own vocation.

Jesus is subject to outrage and disrepect every day by His own flock.

I live in Connecticut where conservatives are hard to find. Glass tabernacles, tabernacles outside of sanctuaries, ciboria made from woven material and glass chalices, parades of extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist on the altar, and priests who are less than reverent in their handling of the Host are all the norm. These are the outrages that we experience on a daily and weekly basis.

When circuses are "performed" daily on the altar, why shouldn't a mad scientist refer to Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament with disrespect?

And when those who can, fail to rise up to defend our Lord, they prove to the mad scientist that he is right.

Hate mail and death threats solve nothing. However, judgement of situations that bring scandal and outrage to our Lord are proper judgements. Proper action can only follow.

I so much appreciate your thoughtful responses. So much so, that I want to make sure I understand them.

"If we ourselves would never dare approach the Blessed Sacrament in a state of mortal sin ...then we are concerning ourselves with those who do."

Are you trying to say that one in mortal sin should receive Holy Communion because they will be judges others if they don't? I am confused were you are coming from.

"And when those who can, fail to rise up to defend our Lord, they prove to the mad scientist that he is right."

Are you saying that Father's advice is not defending our Lord? or. . . Father is saying such sins are not really that bad?

The point I am coming from is that Father is calling the flock to greater holiness, by stopping all of the grave abuses by us Catholics and gave us a spiritual way to take proper action. Would you agree?

Hi,I apologize that I am not making myself clear. And maybe I didn't dig deep enough into what Father was suggesting.1. Good advice- pray the Chaplet.2. When we pray the second Chaplet, what I am looking to hear, is to pray for a misguided church, for therein lie the outrages and sacrileges. If individual parishes can allow the abominations that are practiced daily and weekly in Catholic churches all over our country, how can we not expect the evil scientist to disrespect our Lord also? Maybe the "we" that Father speaks of is we the church, not individuals.3. From the comments section- we don't need to compare ourselves as individulas to an evil scientist- we love our Lord, and cannot compare our faults and failings to that of Myers. To me, it seems like soft pedaling- making light or excuses for not seeing the evil of this abomination.

For the record, I am not 'soft pedaling- making light or excuses for not seeing the evil of this abomination.' That is why I stated in the original e-mail, 'we are called to take the gentle actions Christ would take to stop it.' My sole point in all of this is that our own Catholic house is in a state of disarray. There are many abuses of sin in our own Church that abuse the Blessed Sacrament. People picking and choosing what they want to believe; Life Issues; dress; parents not passing on the Faith to their children; putting mere earthly matters ahead of Faith. Concerning this professor, I repeat what I originally said, 'we are called to take the gentle actions Christ would take to stop it.' My point is: do not forget our own House. There is a lot of disrespect to our Lord's Real Presence to be found there-in.

Fr. Tim's advice is wise. This professor is just one of bazillions like him -- he just wanted his 15 minutes of fame, and we will have to pray him clear of its reverberations on the other side of the veil--which could be a whole lot longer than 15 minutes.. but I think if once He saw Jesus' eyes on him, even one minute would wound him nearly to death, for he'd know that he can't take back his action, and that only Jesus can undo it now. We'll pray for him, and of course, Jesus (and all in the Holy Family, for that matter) is owed reparation for sacrileges here, and indeed, beginning with our own. As He said, and in ways as Paul echoed, we know not (all of) what we do. Our reparation can never go too far amiss.

In the year of St. Paul let us ask for his intercession, that he may go to the foot of our Lord and ask that he shower down graces upon this professor. Let us pray that as Our Father opened the eye of St. Paul let him also open the eyes of the professor so that he may be a witness to all of the profound glory of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament.

Just how can you take offense at something so petty - is your 'faith' so tenuous? Wake-up people and find better things to be shocked an horrified by, like perhaps the response of the Catholic league to all of this nonsense! Professor Myers received actual death-threats as a result of all of this. What would Jesus think i wonder?

This is in response to "InGodWeRust". This is not petty. This is the very foundation of our faith. At the Last Supper, Jesus did NOT state, "this is a symbol of my body", or "this is a cracker". He stated "THIS IS MY BODY" and we hold the Eucharist in the highest of respect and reverence. What the professor did was to repeat what happened on Calvary and to drive a nail into the flesh of Our Lord. I don't believe Jesus thought it was petty then , nor is it petty now. When you don't respect God, nothing else matters, because you have no respect for anything.Do yourself a favor. Get a clue and pray for yourself and that professor/friend of yours who is under the influence of the evil one. Don't let your heart be hardened and allow yourself to fall into grave sin. Pray for the gift of faith. Pray unceasingly. I will pray for both of you.

anonymous: you choose to believe in any biblical rubbish that you choose. I don't need an imaginary friend watching and judging my every move. I know i am a good-person and need no religious nonsense to justify my existance. You state an awful lot in your comments, none of which i hold to be true. How can you possibly tell me what Jesus said or thought? The arrogance of the religious never fails to stagger me. "We know the word of God and he will look after us for all of our fawning and obedience, follow us or burn for ever - infantile!". How can anybody with a mind not bogged-down in doctrine and superstition fall for this. As for the 'body of Christ', be serious. Another bit of superstition to stupify the ignorant masses (and incidently to persecute Jews), hundreds of years ago. A time when people were supposed to be more gullible due to their inevitable lack of education. Modern people have no excuse for this rubbish and i make no apology for mocking it. I cannot respect what is patently absurd. Also you can all spare me the usual quotes from scripture as well, in an attempt to show me the error of my ways. I have no respect for anything written decades after the birth/death of a middle-eastern preacher - that purports to 'reveal' ideas that can have relevance today. There is one life. No after-life and you are wasting yours with religious ignorance. Get off your knees enjoy your life.

ingodwerust: You militant atheists crack me up sometimes. You go on and on about how you're all "freethinkers", yet you seem perfectly content to let the Three Blowhards (Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchins) do your thinking for you. Can't you think of some original insults besides the usual "imaginary friend" and "superstitious" garbage? BTW, Dawkins' "God Delusion" tome didn't change my mind at all.

Maybe atheists wouldn't be viewed as the most distrusted minority in America if you and your cohorts actually behaved like civil human beings and understood the concept of "respect".

You know Father, this is exactly the way my Holy Hour of reparation turned out. I had planned to offer the Holy Hour to God for the sin committed by the said PZ Myers, but very quickly realised that it is something we are all guilty of and so offered the hour for all acts of outrage, sacrilege, indifference, blasphemy and desecration perpetrated perpetually agains the Holy Sacrament of the Altar. I will add, however, that there is a big difference between his action and my action in that his was done with intent and hatred whereas mine, most times, are through ignornace and are for the most part unintentional.

Jay D: Just how have i and my cohorts been militant? Do you fear an army of Atheists arriving at your church intent on burning it to the ground? Whilst i admit to being a little strident, it is only words after all. Point-taken on the imaginary-friend thing, it's a cheap-shot but it obviously stuck a chord...Let me assure you nobody does my thinking for me. Unlike you i have looked at the facts and not decided to ignore them and indulge in wishful thinking. You say you have read The God Delusion and it didn't change your mind. Well, congratulations - didn't it at least open your mind to new ideas? No half-truths or lies in that book (and if there was, we would have heard about it). Explain why exactly you distrust Atheists? Because our very existance threatans your comfortable little safety blanket? No christian is at risk from attack by atheists. The very fact that we don't respect your world-view is where the hatred comes from. No dogma has any right to respect, why should i possibly respect your views? I am constantly bombarded by religion, tv, books, billboards, churches, people knocking at my door telling me to repent and share their views. You should take a long hard look at your own organisation before casting first stones.Open your mind and get a bit of respect for people who have actually looked at the (non-existant) evidance and not found it compelling. If you would like to try and convert me please try. Whilst i will certainly attmpet to respect you, I won't repect your views however, - never and the religious mind needs to except that. Nobody, and nothing has the right (divine or otherwise) to be not-offended or to automatically engendered respect. Respect must be earned.

ingodwerust: To be honest, I probably was more than a little curt with in my response to you. My response to you was a typical outburst to similar posts like yours that I have come across from years of reading religious boards and blogs on the Internet. Usually those posts are meant as nothing more than to be disruptive; I'm being sterotypical here, but I'd think most atheists would have little interest in an explicitly religious blog, and most religious would have little interest in an explicitly atheistic blog. I don't know if your original intention was to be disruptive, and I don't want to accuse you of that, seeing as how you did give my post a well-thought out repsonse.

Anyway, on the subject of "respect" , especially in terms of religious "respect", I've seen a great difference in the sense of "respect" in the real world, and here on the Internet. At my workplace, I work and I've worked with people of almost all ethnicities and religions, including many atheists. With all the people I've discussed religion with, none of those who've had differing views than I've had (including atheists) have felt the need to impugn or denegrate the other based on differing beliefs, or lack thereof. We've come to our conclusions on the nature of this universe in different ways, and in the end, I do end up respecting these people and their views. I can't literally put myself in your shoes, but something tells me that as an atheist, you've probably had instances in your life where Christians and other religious folk haven't been good ambassadors of their faith after you've made mention of your lack of belief, and that has probably shaped your opinions of the religious for the worse, and probably has caused you to distrust many religious groups. I hope I don't sound smug, but I actually cannot say I distrust atheists, seeing as the atheists I've known were credits to their disbelief. I mentioned that atheists were the most distrusted minority in America. That was from a poll that I read on another religious forum quite a while back. Seeing how it was a religious forum (and poll, if I recall), I'm sure there was some sort of bias involved (probably involving those bad "ambassadors", as I put it).

I think you made a good point in that one cannot be forced to respect something that they just can't. I realize I was more than I little agitated when I mentioned understanding the concept of respect, which I think you explained well in your reply. I think one of the earliest lessons my "Gawd-fearing Christian parents" (as my dad would've said in his thick New York accent) gave me when I was young was to treat those different with respect, and I guess that's something I've taken to heart all these years. I know and accept that I can never change your mind regarding such a heavy topic as religion, and I do accept that as one of our differences.

I don't have any intentions on converting you, and if you've ever personally known me (and who knows, maybe we've crossed paths before), I am actually not the type to wear my religion on my sleeve. I'm sure many of the readers of this blog might chastise or disagree on this, but I think religion is meant to be personal, and it is something personal to me. If someone were to ask my belief system, they'd get an honest and quite possibly lengthy answer, but I'm not the kind to proselytize. Your opinions of the religious would probably be different if you didn't face the overt proselytization that you say you face everyday involving the media, advertising, etc. I don't speak for those people; those who overtly proselytize speak for themselves, their actions, and the results of their actions.

Regarding "open-mindedness", if I do speak for myself, I have always considered myself open-minded (though I'm sure there's somebody out there who knows me that would disagree!) I think that for someone who believes in God, it would take a very open mind to pick up a Richard Dawkins book like I did (suggested by another Christian that I've known for a while, who, like me, spends most of his free time with a book in his hands), read the opposing viewpoints, and ponder upon was written. I'm sure many believers would dismiss Dawkins and not give his book a second look. Being, in my opinion, open-minded, I answered a challenge, and finished the challenge as pretty much the same man. Dawkins is a sharp man, I'll admit that, but he still comes across as arrogant. I'm sure he could care less if he gets respected by the believers, but I think he could get more people interested in what he has to say if he toned down his arrogance ( and my conclusion that he's arrogant had more to do with a television appearance he did a while back than by reading his book. All the while, you're probably thinking I'm just as arrogant, too :) ).

Jay D:Thanks for your measured and thoughtful response. My original point in posting here was to highlight the over-reaction, and outright hysterial in the Catholic response to the PZ Myers affair. PZ uses ridicule to make his point, what other avenues do we have as Atheists? We are swamped under by a religious populous who think we all spend our free time indulging in hedonistic excess. When in fact, we only indulge some of the time... Atheists are generally well-educated, ethical and caring people who truly cannot understand how people can justify the leap of faith required for belief. We rail against the religous dismissal of evolution and it's attempts to get religion taught in science classes. We see the Catholic-church causing thousands of deaths in sub-saharan Africa due to the 'moral' teaching on the use of contraception. We see this and find ourselves not-represented. Out of that sometimes comes an unfortuntate tendancy to mock and ridicule. Whilst i don't directly apologise for it, i do regret the necessity. In this PZ Myers affair, your own Catholic League has disgraced the genuinely honest and gentle people of faith everywhere, first of all by clamering for the people to be kicked out of college and for PZ to lose his job, and finally for not speaking out against the vitriolic messages and death-threats aimed at PZ from like-minded people of faith.

Finally i would just like to comment on your Richard Dawkins points. Firstly i would say that i have always considered him gentle - compare him to Christopher Hitchens for example. Richard has to deal with his lifes-work being ignored in the face of 150 years of unbroken evidence. He is passionate about education and of course he is an Atheist who has no time for superstition of any kind. His books illustrate the wonders of life and nature and he paints a beautiful picture of the world but finds no place for God. Hardly arrogant, he is strident and occasionally dismissive but i think arrogant is unfair (though i am willing to be proved wrong). Now look at what we as Atheists have to deal with. Bill Donohue, Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertsen and a right-wing American govenernment willfully ignoring the separation of church and state. Search for some of the vile things said by any of those religous 'ambassadors' and compare with Richard Dawkins. You will quickly see that we are not even playing the same sport. Compare the Intelligent Design/creationism people's attempts to have religion supplant evolution in the science class - with what Atheists would like taught in the classroon (freethought, critical-thinking, questioning of dogma) -- you see my point i'm sure.

Again thanks for you response - i'm sure we would get along fine if we ever met!

ingodwerust (I'll try my best to keep it short, BTW): I'm sorry I misjudged you in your original post! I agree we'd probably get along fine in real life (and we probably were already in lousy moods when we originally posted, I'd venture to say?)

Anyway, I'm actually not a big fan of Donohue, or Robertson and his ilk. I agree with Donohue some of the time, but I find he does have a political agenda when it comes to other issues. Politcally, I'm quite liberal, and through reading the Catholic League website for many years, have found him extremely harsh on some issues, especially gay issues. As I previously mentioned, no person directly speaks for me, Donohue especially included.

I certainly do not dismiss evolution, either. It is a very compelling theory. We just disagree on whether there was any divine guidance involved.

Take care, and thanks for providing some "food for thought" these past few days.

Here in the Diocese of Charlotte NC in the Parish of The Holy Family we have had eleven instances of finding Host on the sidewalk outside of the Church in two years. Four letters to our Bishop and three to the Apostolic Nuncio brought only one reply. 'The Bishop should be addressed as your Excellency." At least now I know straight from my Bishop what is important to him!

I certainly agree there is no good reason to antagonize any believers by holding up for ridicule their objects of veneration. Clearly, the Danish cartoonist who mockingly protrayed Mohammad presents evidence of that.

However, I can't see the desecration of the eucharist as a problem even if the eucharist somehow is what it certainly doesn't appear to be by molecular and atomic structure. Afterall can a sqare be a circle simply by saying--on faith--that it is so? Nonetheless, if the eucharist is as it is claimed, then, I would recommend that you leave the outrage to the vindictive god who is offended.

You may, after all, be spending too much time trying to make other people respect and honor what you believe to be evident. So it is in the case of the Danish cartoonist; so it is in your case.

If you examine the issue, you may see also that it is natural to feel a certain contempt for people who believe nonsense (recall the story of the "Emperor's New Clothes"). So, when people fall for nonsense, it may also, in certain personalities and at certain times, breed loathing, as those who do not fantasize reality, certainly experience a disregard for people so silly as to believe nonsense.